RBGG’s Sanford Jay Rosen and Devin Mauney co-authored an article for the Daily Journal on July 3, 2018 in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court decision on an important reproductive rights and First Amendment case, NIFLA v Becerra: folly, fallout and follow-up.
Sandy and Gay Grunfeld had filed an amicus brief in the case on behalf of several California and National organizations on the front lines of protecting women’s health and reproductive rights, including Equal Rights Advocates, Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California, California Women Lawyers, Hadassah, and the Family Violence Appellate Project.
The brief supported California’s law by marshaling abundant facts about the epidemic of deceptive and plainly false information pushed by CPCs. Noting Justice Holmes famous pronouncement that “[t]he most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre[,]” Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47, 52 (1919), the brief argues that California’s interest in correcting CPCs’ widespread deception and misinformation is not merely important but compelling.
The amicus brief is available here: NIFLA v Becerra Brief for Amici Curiae.
The Supreme Court’s opinion is here: NIFLA v Becerra 16-1140
Full text of the DJ article: NIFLA v Becerra DJ 070318